relationship dissolution following infidelity - frank fincham

Relationship Dissolution Following Infidelity

1

Chapter to appear in: M. Fine & J. Harvey (Eds)., The Handbook of Divorce and Romantic Relationship

Dissolution. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Julie H. Hall SUNY Buffalo

Frank D. Fincham

Florida State University


2

INTRODUCTION

Tom and Diane have been dating exclusively for three years. Four months ago, Tom

became sexually involved with a female coworker and has continued this relationship without

Diane’s knowledge. Diane recently overheard a phone conversation between Tom and his

coworker and confronted him about it. Tom admitted to the affair, but promised to end it and

asked Diane for her forgiveness. He vowed never to stray from their relationship again, pledging

his love and commitment to Diane. Diane initially agreed to give Tom another chance, but found

that she was unable to put the incident out of her mind and decided to break off the relationship.

Tom was upset, but agreed that they should go their separate ways.

Rick and Nancy have been married for seven years and have a two-year-old son. Early in

their marriage, Rick had a brief affair with a neighbor that he revealed to Nancy and they were

able to put behind them. However, several years later Nancy had a one-night stand with an ex-

boyfriend, which she immediately regretted. She never told Rick about the affair, but has

struggled with guilt and remorse over of the incident. Nancy recently decided to disclose the

infidelity to her husband, and he was extremely angered and hurt by this information and the fact

that she had kept the affair a secret for so many years. Rick told Nancy that he needed some time

to think about their future, but ultimately decided to rebuild their marriage. They went through

counseling and over time Rick was able to forgive his wife. The couple regretted that the incident

ever occurred, but felt that their relationship was even stronger after working through it.


3

How is it that two couples can experience infidelity in such different ways? Why is that

infidelity led to relationship dissolution for Tom and Diane, whereas Rick and Nancy were able

to reconcile and move forward? Admittedly, Nancy’s fleeting indiscretion seems more minor

than Tom’s four-month affair, but there may also be other factors at play. Dating couples are

perceived as being more likely to separate after infidelity than are married couples (Roscoe,

Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988). In addition, couples are more likely to breakup when infidelity is

discovered “red-handed” like Tom and Diane, than when it is voluntarily disclosed as it was by

Nancy (Afifi, Falato, & Weiner, 2001). In light of these data, the differential effect of infidelity

on these two couples seems obvious. However, the picture is not so simple, as there is also

evidence to suggest that Rick and Nancy may have been more likely to separate than Tom and

Diane. Men are less likely to forgive and more likely to break up with a sexually unfaithful

partner than an emotionally unfaithful partner (Hall & Fincham, 2004; Shackelford, Buss, &

Bennett, 2002). There is also a higher risk of relationship dissolution when both spouses have

been unfaithful than there is when only one spouse has had an affair (Glass, 2003). Thus, it is

evident that the impact of infidelity on a romantic relationship can be quite complex and

multidimensional.

Given the multifaceted association between infidelity and relationship dissolution, it is

crucial that researchers and clinicians explore not only the first-order effects of different

variables on the likelihood of relationship termination, but also consider how such factors may

interact to cause dissolution or reconciliation. In accordance with this important but admittedly

lofty vision of contextualizing the decision to terminate a relationship following infidelity, the

current chapter will explore the predictors of relationship dissolution following infidelity, as well

as evidence of interdependence among these predictors. In this regard we will consider: event-


4

related factors, such as the type of infidelity and degree of involvement; cognitive factors, such

as attributions and attitudes regarding extradyadic involvement, and the other spouses’ awareness

of the infidelity; and individual/partner characteristics and relationship variables. After exploring

the various determinants of relationship dissolution following infidelity, the impact of

extradyadic behavior on postmarital adjustment will be considered. In the penultimate section of

the chapter we examine the role of couple therapy and forgiveness in the aftermath of infidelity.

Finally, future directions for clinical work and research will be explored. However, we begin

with a brief review of the infidelity literature to lay the foundation for later sections of the

chapter.

THE CHEATING HEART: PREVALENCE, CAUSES, AND CONSEQUENCES OF

INFIDELITY

According to conservative estimates, infidelity occurs in 20 to 25% of all marriages

(Greeley, 1994; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Wiederman, 1997), and can

have a number of deleterious effects on a relationship and the individuals involved. Infidelity is

the leading cause of divorce (Amato & Previti, 2003; Beitzig, 1989; Kitson, Babri, & Roach,

1985), and often results in anger, disappointment, self-doubt (Buunk, 1995), and depression

(Cano & O’Leary, 2000) among partners of unfaithful individuals. It has also been causally

linked to domestic violence (Buss, 1994; Daly & Wilson, 1988). The scope of infidelity extends

beyond the marital realm, with 65% - 75% of college students reporting engagement in some

form of extradyadic involvement while in a serious dating relationship (Shackelford, LeBlanc, &

Drass, 2000; Wiederman & Hurd, 1999). Further, therapists indicate that infidelity is the third

most difficult problem to treat (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997), and that forgiveness is a

challenging but necessary part of the healing process (Coop Gordon & Baucom, 1999). Given


5

the magnitude of this problem, researchers have devoted considerable energy to identifying the

causes of infidelity, in hopes of controlling or reversing these predisposing factors in at-risk

couples.

However, such research has been plagued with methodological problems. While

prospective longitudinal studies are best able to address causality, the majority of infidelity

research has focused on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective reports. In the former case,

participants speculate about factors that would lead someone to be unfaithful. Unfortunately, it

has yet to be established that these studies accurately predict the causes of actual infidelity. In the

latter type of study, retrospective designs have been utilized to identify post hoc explanations of

real-life infidelity, but these reports are often biased. Yet despite these methodological

limitations, this body of research has yielded important information about variables that predict

infidelity.

Predictors can be grouped into individual or relationship characteristics and contextual

factors, and are fairly consistent across dating and married samples; Roscoe et al. (1988) found

that the perceived reasons for extradyadic behavior in dating relationships ran parallel to

explanations for extramarital affairs. Individuals with permissive sexual values are more likely to

engage in infidelity, and this permissiveness is more common among males, African-Americans,

and highly educated individuals (Smith, 1994). In addition, low religiosity is correlated with

extramarital sex (Medora & Burton, 1981).

In terms of relationship characteristics, infidelity has been consistently linked to sexual or

emotional dissatisfaction in one’s primary relationship (e.g. Brown, 1991). However, this

association may be moderated by gender or the nature of the infidelity. Evolutionary theory

posits that the male desire for sexual variety stems from the basic need to spread their genes


6

through procreation. Thus, males’ affairs tend to be purely sexual in nature, and may be

unrelated to marital satisfaction (Atwater, 1982; Buunk, 1980; Glass & Wright, 1985; Pestrak,

Martin, & Martin, 1985; Spanier & Margolis, 1983; Thompson, 1984). Women’s affairs,

however, are more emotionally charged, and women engaged in these affairs are more likely to

be dissatisfied with their primary relationship (Atwater, 1982; Buunk, 1980; Glass & Wright,

1977; Glass & Wright, 1985). Length of marriage is also a significant predictor of infidelity, but

is confounded with marital satisfaction, which generally declines over time (Glass & Wright,

1977; Spanier & Margolis, 1983). Theoretical models of the relationship-oriented causes of

infidelity have also gained empirical support. In accordance with equity theory, dating and

married individuals are more likely to engage in infidelity when the relationship is inequitable or

when they feel underbenefited than are couples in equitable or inequitable/overbenefited

relationships (Walster, Traupmann, & Walster, 1978). Among dating couples, low commitment

was predictive of later physical and emotional infidelity, lending support to an investment model

of infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999).

As regards contextual predictors of infidelity, opportunities for extramarital involvement

are associated with a higher likelihood of infidelity (e.g. Treas & Giesen, 2000). Opportunities

can take the form of a high availability of potential partners (Johnson, 1970), frequent travel

(Wellings, Field, Johnson, & Wadsworth, 1994), or living in a large city (Smith, 1994). Finally

substance abusing spouses show greater infidelity (Hall, Fals-Stewart & Fincham, 2004) at both

situational and global levels (Leigh & Stall, 1993). At the situational level, it is believed that

alcohol intoxication may lead an individual to take sexual risks that would not be taken when

sober. At the global level, heavy episodic drinkers are more likely to have multiple sexual

partners (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995) and alcoholic patients in addition to


7

having multiple sex partners, show low rates of condom use, and trade sex for drugs or money

(Scheidt & Windle, 1995).

The consequences of infidelity extend beyond the individuals involved in the infidelilty.

With the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), infidelity has become a

significant public health issue. Not only are individuals who engage in unprotected sex outside of

a committed relationship at direct risk of exposure to STDs, there is also emerging evidence that

the primary partners of these individuals are at indirect risk of exposure to diseases such as HIV

(Fals-Stewart, Birchler, Hoebbel, Kashdan, Golden, & Parks, 2003). In the case of the “cheating

heart,” the stakes can literally become a matter of life and death.

The associations between the occurrence of infidelity and various “vulnerability” factors

raise an interesting issue. Given that infidelity is generally associated with relationship problems,

which of these predicaments gives rise to relationship dissolution? Is dissolution truly a

consequence of infidelity, or, is relationship termination actually a consequence of relationship

distress, of which infidelity is only a symptom? This distinction must be explored before

proceeding further.

INFIDELITY AS A CAUSE OF RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION?

It is commonly assumed that relationship termination that follows infidelity is due to one

or both partners unfaithfulness. However, divorce has also been linked to a number of other

factors beyond infidelity (e.g. incompatibility, drinking, or drug use), and many of the variables

that are predictive of infidelity are also predictive of marital dissolution (Amato & Previti, 2003;

Amato & Rogers, 1997; Booth & Edwards, 1985). These data make it difficult to discern

whether infidelity is truly a cause of relationship dissolution, or whether it is just symptomatic of

existing individual/relationship vulnerabilities that are also associated with divorce. One might


8

argue that infidelity rarely occurs in the absence of individual/relationship characteristics that

might also contribute to divorce. As such, researchers must disentangle the numerous temporal

and causal associations between vulnerability factors, infidelity, and divorce, in order to define

the unique impact of infidelity on the decision to divorce.

While 25-50% of divorcees report that a spouse’s infidelity was the primary cause of

their divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987), individuals who separated or divorced following infidelity

tend to attribute their breakups to a number of reasons aside from infidelity (Buunk, 1987). Thus,

it is especially important to consider what infidelity may signify to a couple and what meaning

the partners attach to it (Pestrak et al., 1985; Riessman, 1989). Did the infidelity occur on a

whim, or did it stem from one partner’s dissatisfaction with his/her marriage? Couples may be

quick to attribute a subsequent decision to divorce to infidelity because it saves them from

having to face other weaknesses in the relationship or in themselves (Buunk, 1987).

When a couple decides to separate after infidelity, how much of this decision can be

attributed to the affair and how much must be attributed to other factors? This question is the

precise reason why we must consider relationship dissolution in context, as the impact of

infidelity differs according to the conditions under which it occurs. Amato and Rogers (1997)

proposed a comprehensive model of the determinants of divorce, in which specific marital

problems such as infidelity were proximally associated with divorce and demographic/life course

variables were distally related to divorce. Infidelity, along with five other specific marital

problems, partially mediated the association between demographic and life course variables and

divorce. While these individual and relationship factors were still uniquely related to divorce,

infidelity was the strongest and most proximal predictor of relationship dissolution. This


9

supports the notion that certain individual or relationship vulnerabilities predict the occurrence of

infidelity, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of relationship dissolution.

It is evident that the role of infidelity in a couple’s decision to terminate a romantic

relationship is multidimensional, and depends greatly upon the context of the infidelity. It may

moderate or mediate the association between a third variable and divorce, or it may be

independently linked to relationship termination. These complexities require us to explore how

the strength of the association between infidelity and relationship dissolution varies according to

event-specific, cognitive, individual/partner, and relationship variables. However, it is important

to bear in mind that the majority of research in this area has been cross-sectional in nature, which

limits us to hypothesizing about the causal links among these variables, infidelity, and

relationship dissolution.

PREDICTORS OF RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION FOLLOWING INFIDELITY

Event-related Variables

The impact of infidelity on a couple’s decision to separate following infidelity depends in

large part upon the nature of the infidelity and how it was discovered. There are three distinct

forms of infidelity, and each ranges on a continuum of mild involvement to major involvement.

Emotional infidelity occurs when one’s partner channels resources such as romantic love, time,

and attention to someone else, whereas sexual infidelity refers to sexual activity with someone

other than one’s relationship partner (Shackelford, LeBlanc, & Drass, 2000). A third form of

infidelity comprises the combination of sexual and emotional indiscretions. While the majority

of research on infidelity and relationship dissolution has focused on the most involved form of

sexual infidelity, sexual intercourse with an extradyadic partner, there is evidence to suggest that

these three forms of infidelity evoke different responses. Sexual infidelity is more likely to result


10

in hostile/vengeful, shocked, nauseated/repulsed, humiliated, sexually aroused, or

homicidal/suicidal feelings than is emotional infidelity (Shackelford et al., 2000). In contrast,

emotional infidelity is more likely to result in undesirable/insecure, depressed,

helpless/abandoned, blameworthy, tired, or forgiving emotions than is sexual infidelity. Men

report that they are more likely to break up with a dating partner who has been sexually

unfaithful than one who has been emotionally unfaithful, while women report the opposite

pattern (Hall & Fincham, 2004; Shackelford et al., 2002). Yet within dating relationships,

combined sexual and emotional infidelity is perceived as most likely to lead to a breakup (Hall &

Fincham, 2004). Similarly, among married couples, the risk of relationship dissolution is greatest

when a spouse is both sexually and emotionally involved with an extradyadic partner (Glass,

2003).

The degree of extradyadic involvement might also be predictive of relationship

dissolution. Shackelford and Buss (1997) presented married couples with six hypothetical

infidelity scenarios, and asked each partner to rate the likelihood of ending the marriage in

response to the other partner’s infidelity. Infidelity behaviors ranged in severity, and included

flirting, passionately kissing, going on a romantic date, having a one-night stand, having a brief

affair, and having a serious affair. There were no significant gender differences, and likelihoods

varied in accordance with the severity of the infidelity behavior. Individuals anticipated being

least likely to divorce in response to a partner’s flirtation (M = 2.5 - 3.8%), and most likely to

divorce because of a partner’s serious affair (M = 66.6% - 69.0%). However, in a

methodologically rigorous comparison of married/cohabiting individuals who end their

relationship or continue it after infidelity, Buunk (1987) found that the two groups did not differ

in terms of the number of extradyadic relationships or degree of involvement (i.e. short term vs.


11

long term). The risk of divorce is especially high when both spouses have engaged in infidelity

and when infidelity continues after a course of marital therapy (Glass, 2003).

While the nature and degree of infidelity are important in terms of predicting relationship

dissolution, it is also crucial to consider how the infidelity is discovered. Afifi, Falato, and

Weiner (2001) found that the rates of relationship dissolution varied as a function of how a

dating partner’s infidelity was discovered. Eighty six percent of individuals who discovered their

partner’s infidelity by confronting the partner about his/her sexual fidelity terminated the

relationship. Catching one’s partner “red-handed” also led to high rates of relationship

dissolution (83%), whereas 68% of those who heard of their partner’s infidelity from a third-

party then ended the relationship. Unsolicited disclosure by the unfaithful party was least likely

to lead to relationship dissolution. This may be because individuals who voluntarily confess their

infidelity to a partner are more committed to repairing the relationship and are willing to make

amends (Afifi et al., 2001). However, it may also be that these individuals provide more

mitigating accounts of their infidelity (Mongeau & Schulz, 1997).

Cognitive Variables

However, even when the objective experience of infidelity is exactly the same for two

couples (e.g. same degree of involvement, same method of discovery, etc.), the impact of the

infidelity can vary greatly. This variability can stem from how the infidelity is interpreted by one

or both partners, and what meaning is ascribed to the affair (Riessman, 1989). Among dating

couples, maladaptive attributions regarding a partner’s infidelity were associated with a higher

risk of relationship dissolution (Hall & Fincham, 2004). Married individuals report that they

would be most upset if a spouse’s infidelity was the result of marital dissatisfaction, and least

upset if the infidelity was done “on a whim”, without an obvious reason (Wiederman & Allgeier,


12

1996). Among married/cohabiting couples who broke up following infidelity, individuals were

more likely to report that their own and their partners’ infidelity was motivated by aggression

(e.g. revenge, anger) and deprivation (e.g., a void in the primary relationship) than were

individuals who reconciled following infidelity (Buunk, 1987).

Interestingly, individuals whose relationships break up following infidelity often ignore

the role that their own infidelity may have played in the break up (Buunk, 1987). When both

partners have been unfaithful, individuals are more likely to attribute the breakup to their

partners’ infidelity than to their own (Buunk, 1987; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gephard,

1953). This effect is most pronounced among men. However, this is likely due to self-serving

biases rather than any empirical difference in the impact of one partner’s infidelity compared to

another’s.

Attitudes regarding the acceptability of extradyadic involvement may also be predictive

of relationship dissolution following infidelity. Although married/cohabiting individuals who

broke up following infidelity did not differ from those who stayed together in their disapproval

of short-term extradyadic involvement, the breakup group was more disapproving of long-term

affairs (Buunk, 1987). These findings are difficult to interpret, as the breakup group’s attitudes

may have changed as a result of the relationship dissolution. Alternatively, those individuals with

more permissive attitudes may not have broken up because they did not feel the need to choose

between relationships when they could maintain both.

Implicit in our discussion thus far is the assumption that the uninvolved partner is aware

of his/her spouse’s infidelity, when this is rarely the case (Ellen, Vittinghoff, Bolan, Boyer, &

Padian, 1998). Not surprisingly, the ramifications of infidelity are much more severe when the

other spouse is aware of it; infidelity usually doesn’t disturb the marriage until it is discovered by


13

the other partner (Kinsey et al., 1948). Spousal awareness is higher among divorced/separated

samples (e.g. Spanier & Margolis, 1983), suggesting that divorce is less likely when infidelity is

not disclosed (Glass, 2003; Lawson, 1988).

Individual and Partner Variables

Infidelity may also have a differential impact on relationships depending on the

characteristics of the individual partners. Gender, attractiveness, and personality have all been

shown to moderate the association between infidelity and relationship dissolution. There is some

evidence to suggest that divorce is more likely after a wife’s infidelity than after a husband’s

infidelity (Betzig, 1989; Kinsey et al., 1953). However, other researchers have found that the

likelihood of divorce following infidelity does not vary according to gender (Vaughn, 2002), and

that men and women are equally disapproving of a spouse’s infidelity (Spanier & Margolis,

1983). Yet overall, women are more likely to report that their divorce was caused by infidelity,

specifically their partners’ infidelity, than are men (Amato & Previti, 2003). While the role of

gender in the decision to divorce after a partner’s infidelity is somewhat unclear, it is evident that

men and women react differently to infidelity.

Men are more likely than women to feel content/relieved, homicidal/suicidal, happy, or

sexually aroused in reaction to a partner’s infidelity (Shackelford et al., 2000). However, women

tend to show a more negative overall emotional reaction to infidelity than do men. Women are

more likely than men to feel nauseated/repulsed, depressed, undesirable/insecure,

helpless/abandoned, or anxious in reaction to a partner’s infidelity. Also, when asked to imagine

a partner’s infidelity, women report more self-doubt and disappointment than men (Buunk,

1995). Self-doubt was especially pronounced among women with lower self-esteem. However,

women whose partners had been unfaithful in the past were less distressed by the prospect of


14

additional infidelity (Buunk, 1995). This suggests that women may adapt to a partner’s infidelity

if it becomes a repeated pattern.

Mate value and attractiveness have also been considered as predictors of relationship

dissolution following infidelity. When one partner is considered more desirable than the other,

this discrepancy may contribute to the likelihood of divorce. Shackelford and Buss (1997) found

that women who were higher in mate value/attractiveness than their husbands were more likely

to predict that they would divorce if their spouse were unfaithful. From an evolutionary

perspective, it is posited that these women would divorce after infidelity in order to find a mate

with higher quality genes. However, men’s predictions of divorce were unrelated to their wives’

mate value or attractiveness.

Spousal personality characteristics are also predictive of relationship termination in the

face of infidelity. Women who are married to emotionally unstable husbands or husbands lower

in openness/intellect are more likely to predict that they would divorce if their spouse were

unfaithful (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). This effect was found only for severe forms of infidelity

such as brief/serious affairs, and not for more minor infidelity behaviors such as flirting or

kissing. Interestingly, these men (i.e. low in emotional stability and openness/intellect) also

reported that they would be more likely to divorce if their wife were unfaithful. Shackelford and

Buss (1997) argue that the importance of men’s personality characteristics is consistent with

other literature on marital stability.

Shackelford and Buss (1997) also considered partner attributes and behaviors that were

upsetting to the other spouse, and found that these qualities were related to the likelihood of

divorce. Husbands who complained of their wives’ unfaithfulness and dishonesty were more

likely to anticipate divorce if their wife had an affair. Meanwhile, wives’ anticipations of


15

divorcing an unfaithful husband were related to complaints of their husbands’ inconsiderateness,

abuse of alcohol, and emotional constriction.

Race and ethnicity are two additional variables that may moderate the likelihood of

relationship dissolution following infidelity. Unfortunately, very little research has been

conducted on this topic. Although rates of infidelity are higher among African Americans and

Hispanics than among Caucasians (Amato & Rogers, 1997; Greeley, 1994; Treas & Giesen,

2000; Wiederman, 1997), rates of relationship dissolution following a partner’s infidelity are not

significantly different among minority and non-minority victims (Hall & Fincham, 2004).

However, given the dearth of research in this area, diversity issues remain an important area for

future research.

Relationship variables

The association between infidelity and relationship dissolution may also vary depending

on the nature or quality of the relationship. While dating infidelity is considered more acceptable

than marital infidelity (Sheppard, Nelson, & Mathie, 1995), relationship termination is

considered a more likely consequence of infidelity in dating relationships than in marital

relationships, potentially because the relative level of commitment is lower (Roscoe et al., 1988).

In addition, the risk of divorce following infidelity appears to decrease with the length of

marriage. Couples who experience infidelity in the early years of marriage are more likely to

divorce than those who experience infidelity later in marriage (Glass & Wright, 1977; Pittman,

1989).

The likelihood of relationship termination following infidelity may also depend on the

level of satisfaction within the primary relationship. Married/cohabiting couples who break up

following infidelity recall lower relationship satisfaction than couples who stay together (Buunk,


16

1987). Similarly, couples who are less committed to each other and to working on their

relationship after infidelity are more likely to divorce (Beach, Jouriles, & O’Leary, 1985; Glass,

2003). There is some evidence to suggest that emotional dissatisfaction is especially relevant for

women in terms of the likelihood of dissolution, whereas sexual dissatisfaction is more salient

for men (Betzig, 1989). In contrast, Shackelford and Buss (1997) found that women’s marital

satisfaction (general, sexual, and emotional) was unrelated to the anticipated likelihood of

divorce after a husband’s infidelity. However, men reporting lower emotional and composite

marital satisfaction were more likely to indicate that they would seek divorce if their wife were

unfaithful.

Additional negative relationship characteristics are also associated with a higher

likelihood of divorce following infidelity. Women involved in high-conflict marriages are more

likely to indicate that they would divorce a husband who engaged in a one-night stand or brief

affair (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). Similarly, women whose marriages are less cooperative and

agreeable, and more quarrelsome are more likely to report that they would divorce their husband

after various infidelity behaviors. Shackelford and Buss (1997) argue that this is consistent with

evidence that women are more sensitive to relationship problems than are men.

THE AFTERMATH OF INFIDELITY

Impact of Infidelity on Post-Relationship Adjustment

The discovery of a husband’s infidelity and/or divorce following such infidelity is

associated with increased risk of a Major Depressive Episode (Cano & O’Leary, 2000).

However, this is unremarkable, given that divorced individuals generally report higher levels of

depression, lower life satisfaction, and more health problems than married individuals (Amato,


17

2000). Thus, it is important to consider how infidelity may contribute to or exacerbate these

problems.

While divorce is predictive of depression, it may be that infidelity increases this risk;

infidelity-related divorces may be even greater stressors than other divorces, because the heavy

emotional and psychological toll associated with adultery is compounded with the distress of

divorce. Indeed, individuals who divorce following infidelity are more distressed after the

dissolution than those who divorce without infidelity (Kitson, 1992). They are also less well-

adjusted to the divorce and more attached to the former spouse than are those whose divorce was

not related to infidelity (Amato & Previti, 2003). Adjustment scores are especially low when the

infidelity was committed by one’s spouse rather than oneself. Similarly, in an analysis of

women’s long-term adjustment to divorce, Thabes (1997) found that infidelity during the

marriage contributed significantly to postdivorce depression. However, this study was restricted

to women who had not remarried, and it is unclear whether the findings would generalize to

remarried women or to men. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that women are more

likely than men to be depressed, disappointed, and self-doubting after a partner’s infidelity

(Buunk, 1995; Shackelford et al., 2000; Sweeney & Horwitz, 2001).

However, the impact of infidelity on post-divorce depression may not be unidimensional;

when examining initiator status (i.e. which spouse initiated the divorce) and spousal infidelity,

Sweeney and Horwitz (2001) found little evidence that either of these factors directly affects

post-divorce depression. Rather, it appears that initiator status moderates the effect of spousal

infidelity on depression, such that individuals who initiate divorce from an unfaithful spouse are

less likely to be depressed than those whose partner initiates the divorce. It may be that initiating


18

divorce from an unfaithful spouse increases one’s sense of control over the situation, thus

mitigating the negative emotional impact of infidelity.

Infidelity may also be associated with poor adjustment among individuals who commit

infidelity. Individuals, especially women, tend to feel extremely guilty after engaging in

extradyadic behavior (Spanier & Margolis, 1983). When compared to same-sex spouses who had

not engaged in infidelity, those individuals who had been unfaithful reported higher levels of

depression and/or lower commitment levels. Thus, mental health issues may actually be a greater

concern for the guilty party than for the spouse. It has been suggested that this depression stems

from the unfaithful spouse’s ambivalence about staying in the marriage, an ambivalence that may

be maintained by the same lack of commitment that prompted the infidelity (Beach et al., 1985).

Despite the many negative outcomes associated with infidelity, some argue that it can

have positive effects on the primary relationship. Infidelity helps some individuals, males in

particular, to recognize that their primary relationships are more valuable and fulfilling that they

had previously thought (Kinsey et al., 1948). Couples often feel closer after working through the

infidelity (Olson, Russell, Kessler, & Miller, 2002), and many report that their marriages

improved following infidelity (Atwater, 1982). However, these findings may be due in part to

individuals’ efforts to minimize their own guilt if they were the ones who had the affair. In

general, the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that the deleterious effects of infidelity

far outweigh evidence to the contrary. Given the distress that is associated with infidelity and

with relationship dissolution, it is not surprising that many couples turn to therapy as they

consider the future of their relationship.

Couple Therapy


19

Approximately 25-30% of couples in marital therapy report that infidelity is a concern

(Green, Lee, & Lusting, 1974). While many of these couples look to the therapist for guidance as

to whether they should terminate the relationship or attempt to salvage it, this is an issue for the

couple to decide as they go through therapy (Thompson, 1984). Glass (2002) suggests that a

general decision about the future of the relationship be made by the couple early in therapy, as it

will guide the course of treatment. Couples are asked to decide whether the therapy should be

labeled as marital, reconciliation, separation, or ambivalence therapy. The larger goals of

treatment include establishing a safe therapeutic environment, understanding the meaning of the

infidelity, creating good will/hope, and deciding whether to stay married or separate (Glass,

2002). Therapy provides an opportunity for clients to express their thoughts and feelings about

the affair in a constructive way, with an emphasis on active listening and empathic understanding

(Thompson, 1984). It is important that this process not be rushed, so that clients don’t make a

decision about the future of the relationship without fully exploring the impact of the infidelity.

While infidelity is both a common and a trying issue for therapists, marital interventions

for addressing extramarital affairs have gained little empirical support. However, there is

emerging evidence to suggest that Gordon and Baucom’s (1999) multitheoretical intervention

may be effective in promoting recovery from such affairs (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 1998;

Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, in press). This intervention is consistent with Glass’s (2002)

approach, in which the impact of infidelity is conceptualized through a trauma framework.

Infidelity is traumatic in that it shakes an individual’s fundamental assumptions about the self,

relationships, and the world (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). This intervention integrates the trauma

literature with a growing body of research on forgiveness, and helps couples to move through

stages of dealing with the impact of the infidelity, searching for meaning, and recovery or


20

moving forward. In the first stage (dealing with the impact of infidelity), the goal is to focus on

the immediate problems caused by the infidelity, such as emotional dysregulation and the

expression of anger and hurt. After exploring the immediate emotional impact of the infidelity,

the next stage involves contextualizing the infidelity by identifying the factors that may have

contributed to the affair and increasing each partner’s empathic understanding of the other’s

position. The decision of whether to end the relationship or stay together is not faced until the

third stage, in which the couple is also encouraged to explore forgiveness, consider what they

have learned from the experience, and reexamine their marriage. If they decide to reconcile, the

remainder of therapy is devoted to “trouble-shooting”, or exploring what issues are still

problematic or may arise in the future. Alternatively, a decision to terminate the relationship is

followed by efforts to help the couple separate as peacefully as possible, ideally with respect,

empathy, and forgiveness.

Gordon and Baucom’s (1999) intervention has been reported to reduce depression, PTSD

symptomatology, global marital distress, and to increase partner forgiveness (Gordon et al., in

press). More general marital interventions have also shown modest effects in promoting recovery

from extramarital affairs; couples undergoing traditional behavioral couple therapy or integrative

behavioral couple therapy after infidelity were more distressed at the onset of treatment than

other couples, but improved at a greater rate (Atkins, 2003). Therapy generally facilitates

communication between partners, and research has shown that couples who are able to discuss

the infidelity in depth are less likely to separate or divorce (Vaughn, 2002). Therapy also

provides a forum for the injured spouse to have his/her questions about the infidelity answered

by the unfaithful spouse; when the unfaithful spouse is willing to answer such questions there is

a lower risk of divorce (Vaughn, 2002).


21

Despite the positive relationship outcomes associated with couple therapy, therapy will

not necessarily promote or ensure reconciliation. Among couples in marital therapy, those who

report infidelity are more likely to separate or divorce (Glass, 2002). Humprey (1985) found that,

among couples in therapy following infidelity, 46% of those in which the husband had been

unfaithful were separated or divorced at the end of therapy, and 48% of those in which the wife

had been unfaithful ended the relationship by the close of treatment. But regardless of a couple’s

decision to separate or stay together, therapy is an excellent vehicle for closure. Forgiveness is

also becoming more prominent in the infidelity-intervention literature, as it has been shown to

benefit both couples who reconcile and those who divorce.

Infidelity: A Forgivable Offense?

Many individuals have misconceptions about what it means to forgive a partner’s

infidelity. Forgiveness does not require an individual to excuse or condone a partner’s

extradyadic behavior, nor does it mean that a couple must reconcile. Infidelity is widely

considered to be unacceptable in our society, and forgiveness does not ask anyone to believe

otherwise. Rather, forgiveness is a process by which an individual replaces destructive responses

towards one’s partner, such as avoidance or revenge, with constructive behavior (McCullough,

Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Forgiveness is an instrumental component of Gordon and

Baucom’s (1999) intervention for recovery from extramarital affairs. Within this intervention,

the goal of forgiveness is for the injured spouse to gain a more balanced view of the offender and

the infidelity, while decreasing negative affect toward the offender (including the right to punish

him/her) and increasing empathy towards the partner. The cultivation of empathy may be

especially important, given its key role in promoting forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997).

Indeed, couples recognize that forgiveness is a necessary part of the healing process, and is


22

equally important for couples who reconcile as it is for those who divorce (Brown, 1991; Olson

et al., 2002). Brown (1991) argues that both partners – the one who engaged in infidelity and the

one who did not – must seek forgiveness for letting their marriage decline. However, it is

important to recognize that forgiveness is a process, and thus may be a long and slow

transformation (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003); couples should not expect to forgive

one another overnight.

While forgiveness does not require a couple to stay together, it may make reconciliation

more likely. In a study of infidelity in dating relationships, Hall and Fincham (2004) found that

forgiveness predicted a lower likelihood of relationship dissolution, and fully mediated the

association between attributions and breakup. This suggests that for many couples affected by

infidelity, forgiveness is the vehicle through which they are able to reconcile. Thus, marital

therapists treating infidelity can use forgiveness as a tool to salvage relationships, or at least

enable them to end amicably. That is not to say that it is always in the best interest of a couple to

remain together after a serious betrayal such as infidelity. Yet despite a couple’s decision to

break up or remain together, forgiveness can have significant emotional and physical health

benefits (McCullough et al., 1997; Toussaint, Williams, Musick, & Everson, 2001; Witvliet,

Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001). It may be that the poor adjustment shown by individuals whose

partners have been unfaithful is due in some part to the anger and resentment that they still hold

towards their ex-partner. Perhaps forgiveness would counteract these emotions and act as a

buffer against such negative post-relationship adjustment; however, this remains an empirical

question. In the next section of the chapter we turn explicitly to other unanswered empirical

questions, in an effort to identify directions for future research that might provide a more


23

complete understanding of the complex association between infidelity and relationship

dissolution.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As emphasized throughout this chapter, the decision to terminate a romantic relationship

following infidelity must be considered in context. While we identified many variables that may

influence the likelihood of relationship dissolution, the absence of a larger theoretical or

empirical framework makes it difficult to synthesize and interpret these associations.

The Need for a Contextual Framework

It is evident that there are many factors which make relationship dissolution more likely

following infidelity, and it is fairly easy to interpret these moderators individually. For example,

evolutionary theory posits that divorce is more likely following a wife’s sexual affair because the

husband’s paternity is threatened (e.g. Shackelford et al., 2002). However, when one considers a

given infidelity-related divorce in full context, with attention to the full range of event-specific,

cognitive, individual/partner, and relationship variables, the roles of each of these individual

factors in the decision to divorce are much more difficult to disentangle.

Shackelford and Buss (1997) argue that the various theories (e.g. inequity theory,

investment theory, evolutionary theory) and predictors of divorce following infidelity can be

synthesized in a spousal cost-infliction model, in which individuals weigh the value of being in a

given romantic relationship. Thus, infidelity forces the betrayed partner to evaluate the costs and

benefits of remaining in the primary relationship, and compare them to those of divorce.

According to this model, predictors such as degree of involvement, personality variables, and

relationship satisfaction represent different levels of spousal cost-infliction. For example, being

married to an emotionally unstable partner is expected to inflict a variety of costs on an


24

individual, thus making divorce a less costly and more beneficial alternative. This model is based

on Lewin’s (1951) model, which was later adapted by Buunk (1987), in which there are “push”

(i.e. high cost and low benefits of primary relationship) and “pull” factors (i.e. low cost and high

benefits of alternative relationship) that may lead to relationship termination. There is evidence

that push factors may be more salient than pull factors in the decision to terminate a relationship

following infidelity; individuals whose relationships ended following infidelity scored more

highly on push factors than did individuals who remained in their primary relationships, while

the two groups did not differ significantly on pull factors (Buunk, 1987). While this attempt to

synthesize the predictors of relationship dissolution within an overarching framework is

commendable, the spousal cost-infliction model is limited in two major ways. First, this model is

not specific to infidelity, and could easily be applied in the absence of infidelity. Individuals may

consider the costs and benefits of a given relationship under any conditions – not just following

infidelity. In addition, this framework does not consider possible interactions between predictors.

The true test of a contextual framework will be in its ability to account for higher order

effects among predictors, as there may not be simple linear associations between these variables

and the decision to separate/divorce. For example, when one’s partner has been mildly unfaithful

(e.g. kissing), attributes the infidelity to marital dissatisfaction, and is emotionally unstable, what

is the likelihood of divorce? The possibilities for interaction effects are seemingly endless

because predictors tend to co-occur. When considering the variables that influence an

individual’s decision to terminate a relationship following infidelity, it will be critical to explore

how certain factors may exacerbate, buffer, or have no effect on the impact of other variables.

Undoubtedly, it will be difficult to formulate a contextual model that fully accommodates higher

order predictors (interaction effects). The first step towards this goal is to expand current studies


25

to explore interactions among predictors of relationship dissolution, as there is very little data in

this area.

The development of an overall contextual model will also be critical in that it will allow

researchers to detect overlap among predictors. When all variables that predict relationship

dissolution after infidelity are considered simultaneously, redundancy among such variables will

become apparent. For example, negative personality traits (e.g. low emotional stability) are

predictive of lower relationship satisfaction and are also related to spousal complaints such as

those considered above (Buss, 1991; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Shackelford & Buss, 2000). If

these variables were evaluated within a single model, it may become evident that they overlap

considerably, and have little unique predictive power when considered individually. Factor

analysis will be useful in reducing the long list of factors that are predictive of dissolution

following infidelity to a smaller, more informative group of independent components.

Further Exploration and Definition of Predictors

Given the great need to condense the current list of variables that predict relationship

dissolution following infidelity, it seems ironic that we would also suggest research to explore

additional predictors and to further define existing ones. However, this is an important area of

investigation because such predictors have received far less attention than the predictors of

infidelity. One issue in particular that requires further consideration is documentation of the full

range of behaviors that constitute infidelity, and movement away from focusing only on the

stereotypic extramarital intercourse. Emotional infidelity has gained more attention in recent

years, as more and more platonic workplace friendships are developing into emotional affairs

(e.g. Peterson, 2003). Internet infidelity is also becoming recognized as a legitimate form of

emotional betrayal (e.g. Shaw, 1997). It will be critical for future research to explore these forms


26

of emotional infidelity, and determine how potent they might be in disrupting a relationship.

Sexual infidelity is also somewhat of a hodgepodge term, as it constitutes minor indiscretions

such as a kiss, as well as major betrayals like intercourse. Thus, it will be essential in future work

that researchers make their conceptualization of infidelity explicit, and collect specific

information from participants regarding discrete infidelity behaviors. To this end, it may become

evident that different cohorts hold different views of what constitutes infidelity. Such efforts will

allow for further refinement of the infidelity definition and greater precision in identifying

infidelity behaviors that are associated with relationship dissolution.

Preventive Variables

The overwhelming majority of research in this area focuses on the “vulnerability” factors

such as relationship dissatisfaction, which make separation or divorce more likely following

infidelity. As a result, there is a large gap in the literature as regards variables that protect or act

as a buffer against infidelity-related relationship dissolution. We know very little about couples

whose affairs do not lead to divorce, and about the individual/relationship qualities or processes

that protect against relationship dissolution. It would be a logical error to assume that “buffers”

simply reflect the opposite of vulnerability factors. For example, one might conclude that marital

satisfaction serves a protective function because marital dissatisfaction predicts divorce.

However, it has become increasingly apparent that positive, satisfying marital processes reflect

much more than the absence of negative processes (Fincham, 1998). Thus, future research must

also explore the characteristics and mechanisms that prevent relationship dissolution following

infidelity.

CONCLUSION


27

At the opening of the chapter we considered two couples who shared the common

experience of infidelity but made drastically different decisions about the future of their

relationship. This example highlighted the importance of contextualizing such a decision, and

considering the many variables that may determine how infidelity impacts a romantic

relationship. We went on to outline how the association between infidelity and relationship

dissolution may vary according to event-related, cognitive, individual/partner, and relationship

variables. This analysis was followed by an exploration of how individuals and couples deal with

infidelity and/or relationship termination. We concluded the chapter by suggesting future

directions for research in this area, with the overall goal of working towards a contextual model

of the many factors that influence the decision to end a relationship after infidelity.

REFERENCES

Afifi, W., Falato, W., & Weiner, J. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational

transgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 291-308.

Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage


28

and the Family, 62(4), 1269-1287.

Amato, P.R., & Rogers, S.J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent

divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612-624.

Amato, P.R., & Previti, D. (2003). People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life

course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602-626.

Atkins, D.C. (2003). Infidelity and marital therapy: Initial findings from a randomized clinical

trial. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Washington.

Atwater, L. (1982). The extramarital connection: Sex, intimacy and identity. New York:

Irvington.

Beach, S.R., Jouriles, E.N., & O’Leary, D.K. (1985). Extramarital sex: Impact on depression and

commitment in couples seeking marital therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 11,

99-108.

Beitzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology,

30, 654-676.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J.N. (1985). Age at marriage and marital instability. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 47, 67-75.

Brown, E. (1991). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Buss, D.M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset.

Journal of Personality, 59, 663-687.

Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Buunk, B. (1980). Extramarital sex in the Netherlands. Alternative Lifestyles, 3, 11-39.

Buunk, B. (1987). Conditions that promote breakups as a consequence of extradyadic

involvements. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5(3), 271-284.


29

Buunk, B. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency and extradyadic sexual experience as related to

jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 147-153.

Cano, A., & O’Leary, K.D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major depressive

episodes and symptoms of nonspecific depression and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 68, 774-781.

Coop Gordon, K., & Baucom, D.H. (1999). A multitheoretical intervention for promoting

recovery from extramarital affairs. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(4), 382-

399.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Drigotas, S.M., Safstrom, C.A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating

infidelity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77(3), 509-524.

Ellen, J.M., Vittinghoff, E., Bolan, G., Boyer, C.B., & Padian, N.S. (1998). Individuals’

perceptions about their sex partners’ risk behaviors. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 328-

332.

Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G.R., Hoebbel, C., Kashdan, T.B., Golden, J., & Parks, K. (2003). An

examination of indirect risk of exposure to HIV among wives of substance-abusing men.

Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 70, 65-76.

Fincham, F.D. (1998). Child development and marital relations. Child Development, 69(2), 543-

574.

Glass, S.P. (2002). Couple therapy after the trauma of infidelity. In A.S. Gurman & N.S.

Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 488-507). New York:

Guilford.

Glass, S.P. (2003). Not “just friends”: Protect your relationships from infidelity and heal the


30

trauma of betrayal. New York: Free Press.

Glass, S.P., & Wright, T.L. (1985). Sex differences in types of extramarital involvement and

marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101-1119.

Glass, S.P., & Wright, T.L. (1977). The relationship of extramarital sex, length of marriage, and

sex differences on marital satisfaction and romanticism: Athanasiou’s data reanalyzed.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 39, 691-703.

Gordon, K.C., Baucom, D.H., & Snyder, D. (1998, November). Addressing infidelity:

Preliminary results for a forgiveness-based marital intervention. In D. Atkins (Chair),

Infidelity: New developments in research and clinical intervention. Symposium

conducted at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy,

Washington, DC.

Gordon, K.C., Baucom, D.H., & Snyder, D.K. (in press). An integrative intervention for

promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.

Greeley, A. (1994). Marital Infidelity. Society, 31, 9-13.

Green, B.L., Lee, R.R., & Lustig, N. (1974). Conscious and unconscious factors in marital

infidelity. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 8, 97-105.

Hall, J.H., Fals-Stewart, W., & Fincham, F. (2004). Risk of Exposure to STIs Among Wives of

Alcoholic Men. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hall, J.H., & Fincham, F. (2004). Reactions to infidelity. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New

York: Free Press.

Johnson, R.E. (1970). Some correlates of extramarital coitus. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 32, 449-456.


31

Karney, B.R. & Bradbury, T.N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability:

A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.

Kelly, E.L., & Conley, J.J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of

marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

52, 27-40.

Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Marin, C.E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.

Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Marin, C.E., & Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the

human female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Kitson, G.C., Babri, K.B., & Roach, M.J. (1985). Who divorces and why: A review. Journal of

Family Issues, 6, 255-293.

Laumann E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of

Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lawson, A. (1988). Adultery: An analysis of love and betrayal. New York: Basic Books.

Leigh, B.C., & Stall, R. (1993). Substance use and risky sexual behavior for exposure to HIV:

issues in methodology. American Psychologist, 8, 1035-1045.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

McCullough, M.E., Fincham, F.D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The

temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540-557.

McCullough, M., Worthington, E., & Rachal, K. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321-336.

Medora, N.P., & Burton, M.M. (1981). Extramarital sexual attitudes and norms of an


32

undergraduate student population. Adolescence, 16(62), 251-262.

Mongeau, P.A., & Schulz, B.E. (1997). What he doesn’t know won’t hurt him (or me): Verbal

responses and attributions following sexual infidelity. Communication Reports, 10(2),

143-153.

Olson, M.M., Russell, C.S., Higgins-Kessler, M., & Miller, R.B. (2002). Emotional processes

following disclosure of an extramarital affair. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,

28, 423-434.

Pestrak, V.A., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (1985). Extramarital sex: An examination of the

literature. International Journal of Family Therapy, 7(2), 107-113.

Pittman, F. (1989). Private Lies. New York: Norton.

Riessman, C.K. (1989). Life events, meaning, and narrative: The case of infidelity and divorce.

Social Science & Medicine, 29(6), 743-751.

Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L.E., & Kennedy, D.R. (1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons,

and consequences. Adolescence, 23, 34-43.

Scheidt, D.M., & Windle, M. (1995). The Alcoholics in Treatment HIV Risk (ATRISK) Study:

gender, ethnic, and geographic group comparisons. Journal of Studies of Alcohol, 56,

300-308.

Shackelford, T.K., & Buss, D.M. (1997). Anticipation of marital dissolution as a consequence of

spousal infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(6), 793-808.

Shackelford, T.K., & Buss, D.M. (2000). Marital satisfaction and spousal cost-infliction.

Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 917-928.

Shackelford, T., Buss, D., & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences

in responses to a partner’s infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 299-307.


33

Shackelford, T.K., LeBlanc, G.J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity.

Cognition & Emotion, 14(5), 643-659.

Shaw, J. (1997). Treatment rationale for internet infidelity. Journal of Sex Education and

Therapy, 22(1), 29-34.

Sheppard, V.J., Nelson, E.S., Andreoli-Mathie, V. (1995). Dating relationships and infidelity:

Attitudes and behavior. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 21(3), 202-212.

Smith, T.W. (1994). Attitudes toward sexual permissiveness: Trends, correlates, and behavioral

connections. In A.S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality across the life course (pp. 63-97). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Spanier, G.B., & Margolis, R.L. (1983). Marital separation and extramarital sexual behavior.

Journal of Sex Research, 19, 23-48.

Sweeney, M.M., & Horwitz, A.V. (2001). Infidelity, initiation, and the emotional climate of

divorce: Are there implications for mental health? Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 42, 295-309.

Thabes, V. (1997). A survey analysis of women’s long-term, postdivorce adjustment. Journal of

Divorce & Remarriage, 27(3/4), 163-175.

Thompson, A. P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 10, 35-42.

Toussaint, L.L., Williams, D.R., Musick, M.A., & Everson, S.A. (2001). Forgiveness and health:

Age differences in a U.S. probability sample. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 249-257.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabitating Americans.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48-60.

Vaughn, P. (2002). Help for therapists (and their clients) in dealing with affairs. La Jolla, CA:


34

Dialogue Press.

Walster, E., Traupmann, J., & Walster, G.W. (1978). Equity and extramarital sexuality. Archives

of Sexual Behavior, 7, 127-142.

Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A., & Wadsworth, J. (1994). Sexual behavior in Britain.

London: Penguin Books.

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G.W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student

binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921-926.

Wiederman, M.W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. The

Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167-174.

Wiederman, M.W., & Allgeier, E.R. (1996). Expectations and attributions regarding

extramarital sex among young married individuals. Journal of Psychology and Human

Sexuality, 8, 21-35.

Wiederman, M., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 265-274.

Whisman, M.A., Dixon, A.E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple

problems and treatment issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361-

366.

Witvliet, C.V., Ludwig, T.E., Vander Laan, K.L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring

grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12,

117-123.

relationship dissolution following infidelity - frank fincham

Documents